Rob Pincus
New member
Okay, I guess that got your attention...
Yes, it is me, "Rob".....
For the past two days I have sat in a class being lectured on 4th amendment issues by an assistant district attorney. Yesterday, she asked a question about frisks and was greeted with a chorus of answers, most of which included the phrase "officer safety."
She explained to the class of mostly non-experienced new-hire LEOs that the law makes no allowance for searches or frisks on the basis of "officer safety." She conceded that most judges will accept the argument, but that there was no basis (at least in VA or Federal law) for it.
THEN, she went on to say that she would just as soon have LEOs conduct searches and/or frisks if there was any reasonable suspicion (lower level than Probable Cause) that it could result in a safer situation for the officer. She stated very clearly that it was better to violate the fourth amendment, possibly ruining a potential case, than to risk having an LEO hurt.
My gut feeling was "hurrah for her!", a DA who regarded the cops safety over a prosectution was okay by me. then she made a similar comment later in the day. Today, she again reiteratd at least twice that "on the street" we should conduct frisks and searches "as necessary" and "so what if you find a gun or dope that is not admissable, at least you are safe and you got some drugs off the street." EEGADS! My mind finally revolted when I realized what she was saying and who she was saying it to.
Here was a DA, appointed by the state to instruct a class of newbie LEOs in the 4th Amendment and how it relates to cop-work and she was telling us, repeatedly, to feel free to ignore it. Of course, che stressed that "for testing purposes" this rule and that case apply to this or that circumstance. Meanwhile, her advice was that in practice basically everyone gets patted down and every car gets searched, if you can stretch ANY rule to get it done.
This really bothered me, and I made a couple attempts to get things back on track in the class. I have taken on the role of the radical libertarian (can you imagine that??!) and I think I made my point, with a little help from some other more experienced/intelligent members of the class.
At the end of the day, she gave us about an hour to "ask the DA anything" and I hit her with a question about CCW Permits, specifically:
"Has ****** county ever prosecuted a CCW permit holder for using/brandishing his weapon?"
she said not that she was aware of, commentiung that she was "very surprised." I asked her what she thought of the permits, knowing that she disaproved, and she made it clear.
I asked her again if there were any incidents of abuse that she knew of, this time statewide, and she again said she didn;t know of any.
so, I slammed the door:
"If there have been no cases of abuse, and no prosecutions for use, why do you still think they are bad?"
She had no answer, except to repeat that she "didn't think that everyone needs to carry a gun." I explained, letting some of my frustration show, that it never ceases to amaze me that an intelligent person can have an opinion so clearly contrary to their experience and knowledge of the facts.
I don't think she really grasped the full scope of my comment.
(Did I mention that our instructors have absolutely no input into our grades? the tests are scantron type, administered by the academy staff after the guest instructors leave, so I really had nothing to lose by confronting her...)
OTOH, it was made very Clear that the refusal of a CONSENTUAL search (do you mind if I look through your car?) is NOT, no way, not-even-close-to, Probably Cause to excercise any other type of search. So, feel free to tell the nice troopers that you do, in fact, mind if they look through your car. BUt, please do it politely.
------------------
-Essayons
Yes, it is me, "Rob".....
For the past two days I have sat in a class being lectured on 4th amendment issues by an assistant district attorney. Yesterday, she asked a question about frisks and was greeted with a chorus of answers, most of which included the phrase "officer safety."
She explained to the class of mostly non-experienced new-hire LEOs that the law makes no allowance for searches or frisks on the basis of "officer safety." She conceded that most judges will accept the argument, but that there was no basis (at least in VA or Federal law) for it.
THEN, she went on to say that she would just as soon have LEOs conduct searches and/or frisks if there was any reasonable suspicion (lower level than Probable Cause) that it could result in a safer situation for the officer. She stated very clearly that it was better to violate the fourth amendment, possibly ruining a potential case, than to risk having an LEO hurt.
My gut feeling was "hurrah for her!", a DA who regarded the cops safety over a prosectution was okay by me. then she made a similar comment later in the day. Today, she again reiteratd at least twice that "on the street" we should conduct frisks and searches "as necessary" and "so what if you find a gun or dope that is not admissable, at least you are safe and you got some drugs off the street." EEGADS! My mind finally revolted when I realized what she was saying and who she was saying it to.
Here was a DA, appointed by the state to instruct a class of newbie LEOs in the 4th Amendment and how it relates to cop-work and she was telling us, repeatedly, to feel free to ignore it. Of course, che stressed that "for testing purposes" this rule and that case apply to this or that circumstance. Meanwhile, her advice was that in practice basically everyone gets patted down and every car gets searched, if you can stretch ANY rule to get it done.
This really bothered me, and I made a couple attempts to get things back on track in the class. I have taken on the role of the radical libertarian (can you imagine that??!) and I think I made my point, with a little help from some other more experienced/intelligent members of the class.
At the end of the day, she gave us about an hour to "ask the DA anything" and I hit her with a question about CCW Permits, specifically:
"Has ****** county ever prosecuted a CCW permit holder for using/brandishing his weapon?"
she said not that she was aware of, commentiung that she was "very surprised." I asked her what she thought of the permits, knowing that she disaproved, and she made it clear.
I asked her again if there were any incidents of abuse that she knew of, this time statewide, and she again said she didn;t know of any.
so, I slammed the door:
"If there have been no cases of abuse, and no prosecutions for use, why do you still think they are bad?"
She had no answer, except to repeat that she "didn't think that everyone needs to carry a gun." I explained, letting some of my frustration show, that it never ceases to amaze me that an intelligent person can have an opinion so clearly contrary to their experience and knowledge of the facts.
I don't think she really grasped the full scope of my comment.
(Did I mention that our instructors have absolutely no input into our grades? the tests are scantron type, administered by the academy staff after the guest instructors leave, so I really had nothing to lose by confronting her...)
OTOH, it was made very Clear that the refusal of a CONSENTUAL search (do you mind if I look through your car?) is NOT, no way, not-even-close-to, Probably Cause to excercise any other type of search. So, feel free to tell the nice troopers that you do, in fact, mind if they look through your car. BUt, please do it politely.
------------------
-Essayons